We've reviewed hundreds of LIMS RFPs over the years, and the pattern is clear: vague RFPs get vague responses that make it impossible to compare vendors meaningfully. Specific, well-structured RFPs get detailed responses that help you make informed decisions.
Key Finding: Labs that skip the RFP process or use minimal RFPs typically spend 30-50% more on implementation due to undiscovered requirements and scope changes.
Why a Good RFP Matters
For You
- • Forces internal clarity on requirements before engaging vendors
- • Enables apples-to-apples comparison of responses
- • Documents expectations that become part of the contract
- • Protects against scope creep
For Vendors
- • Shows you're a serious buyer worth their time
- • Gives them enough information to respond accurately
- • Helps them identify if they're a good fit
- • Reduces wasted effort on both sides
RFP Structure Overview
A complete LIMS RFP typically includes these sections:
- 1. Introduction and Background - Who you are
- 2. Project Overview - Scope and timeline
- 3. Scope of Work - What you need
- 4. Functional Requirements - System capabilities
- 5. Technical Requirements - Architecture and integration
- 6. Implementation Requirements - Project expectations
- 7. Support and Maintenance - Ongoing relationship
- 8. Vendor Qualifications - Company evaluation
- 9. Commercial Terms - Pricing structure
- 10. Submission Instructions - Logistics
- 11. Evaluation Criteria - How you'll decide
- 12. Appendices - Supporting documents
Section 1: Introduction and Background
Set the context. Help vendors understand who you are.
Example:
"[Organization Name] is a high-complexity clinical reference laboratory operating from two locations in [State], serving over 300 physician practices and healthcare facilities. We process approximately 4,000 specimens daily across chemistry, hematology, microbiology, and molecular diagnostics."
Section 4: Functional Requirements
This is typically the longest section. Present your requirements in a format that enables clear responses.
| Req ID | Requirement | Priority | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| SM-001 | System shall assign unique accession numbers automatically | Must | F/P/R/N |
| QC-001 | Support Westgard QC rules for result validation | Must | F/P/R/N |
| DI-001 | Maintain data integrity with complete audit trails | Must | F/P/R/N |
F = Full capability, P = Partial, R = On roadmap, N = Not available
Requirement Categories
Sample Management
- • Accessioning and sample login
- • Sample tracking and location
- • Chain of custody
- • Sample storage management
Quality Management
- • QC management
- • Proficiency testing
- • Calibration tracking
- • CAPA management
Section 5: Technical Requirements
Address architecture, integration, and infrastructure:
- Architecture: Deployment model, database, browser requirements, mobile support
- Integration: HL7/FHIR capabilities, API availability, instrument interfaces
- Security: Authentication options, role-based access, encryption
- Compliance: 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, SOC 2 certification
Section 8: Vendor Qualifications
Evaluate the company, not just the product. Specific questions to ask:
- • How many clinical labs are currently using your system?
- • What is your average implementation timeline for labs of our size?
- • What percentage of implementations go live within original timeline?
- • Describe a challenging implementation and how it was resolved.
Section 11: Evaluation Criteria
Transparency helps vendors focus their responses on what matters most to you:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Functional Fit | 30% |
| Technical Architecture | 15% |
| Vendor Viability | 20% |
| Implementation Capability | 15% |
| Total Cost of Ownership | 15% |
| Support/Partnership | 5% |